Positive Council Changes during Financial Reorganization

[malraux]

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

Then they are not fulfilling the terms of their Charter agreement.  To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the current model. 

Agreed, but what are we to do? 

I do agree that the current charter model is flawed. The idea behind it is that a youth serving organization would seek out the scouting program to become a franchise of the BSA as one of their elements. In practice, what happens is that a group of people say they want a scout group, and then find a chartering partner. The CO really doesn't care about scouting in particular. Not a good system. Not sure how to replace it, as my impression of the GSUSA system wherein the council owns all the units is even worse.

[ValleyBoy]

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

Then they are not fulfilling the terms of their Charter agreement.  To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the current model.  The CO/COR are ignorant of, or simply ignore, their agreed upon responsibilities...and the Professional staff are just as happy to be given free rein without outside interference, handpicking the Executive Board to do the SE's bidding.  Perhaps scout camps would not be sold off to continue paying 6-figure salaries if the CORs showed up and voted.

But what do you do when you have a good unit except for having a uninvolved CO/COR.

[ValleyBoy]

3 minutes ago, malraux said:

Agreed, but what are we to do? 

I do agree that the current charter model is flawed. The idea behind it is that a youth serving organization would seek out the scouting program to become a franchise of the BSA as one of their elements. In practice, what happens is that a group of people say they want a scout group, and then find a chartering partner. The CO really doesn't care about scouting in particular. Not a good system. Not sure how to replace it, as my impression of the GSUSA system wherein the council owns all the units is even worse.

Bingo.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

Then they are not fulfilling the terms of their Charter agreement.  To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the current model.  The CO/COR are ignorant of, or simply ignore, their agreed upon responsibilities...and the Professional staff are just as happy to be given free rein without outside interference, handpicking the Executive Board to do the SE's bidding.  Perhaps scout camps would not be sold off to continue paying 6-figure salaries if the CORs showed up and voted.

If the councils were fulfilling their end of the charter agreement, I might agree with you.  As it is, I can't see how we can expect the COR's to keep wasting their time, year after year, by attending the council meetings to simply rubber stamp the predetermined outcomes.  Let the Chartered Organizations and their COR's exercise their proper roles, and I would be the first to say that they all need to step up to make the necessary reforms happen.

[HashTagScouts]

2 hours ago, malraux said:

We're doing good if we can find our COR to sign adult applications. Expecting them to attend regular scout board meetings is beyond what they would ever do.

 

17 minutes ago, malraux said:

Agreed, but what are we to do? 

I do agree that the current charter model is flawed. The idea behind it is that a youth serving organization would seek out the scouting program to become a franchise of the BSA as one of their elements. In practice, what happens is that a group of people say they want a scout group, and then find a chartering partner. The CO really doesn't care about scouting in particular. Not a good system. Not sure how to replace it, as my impression of the GSUSA system wherein the council owns all the units is even worse.

Allowing the CO to truly fully designate the Committee Chair to serve as the voting member could be one avenue to improve the system.  Our CO in general is supportive of us, and wants to have the affiliation for their Legion post to the youth.  However, their bylaws call for annual election and the current Post Commander becomes the defacto IH and COR.  That person may not be the most connected person to the unit.  If they want to designate the CC or even the SM to serve their interests as well as the units, let them do so.  Otherwise for us, as i feel it is for many if not most, I have to chase them down to sign the application for the new ASM or Committee Member- who is serving the unit, not the COH really.

Edited February 5, 2020 by HashTagScouts

[qwazse]

23 minutes ago, David CO said:

If the councils were fulfilling their end of the charter agreement, I might agree with you.  As it is, I can't see how we can expect the COR's to keep wasting their time, year after year, by attending the council meetings to simply rubber stamp the predetermined outcomes.  Let the Chartered Organizations and their COR's exercise their proper roles, and I would be the first to say that they all need to step up to make the necessary reforms happen.

Interesting thought. If COR's had more weight what might have happened? More or less ...

• consiliatory attitude toward the three Gs (Girls, Godless, and Gender Discordant)?
• will to "lock-in" advancement at age 18?
• acceptance of the New Scouting Program?
• layers of protection from abusers?
• efficient communications?
• FOS participation?
• marketplace of ideas?
• merger and acquisition?

This no doubt varies by council.

[carebear3895]

34 minutes ago, David CO said:

If the councils were fulfilling their end of the charter agreement, I might agree with you.  As it is, I can't see how we can expect the COR's to keep wasting their time, year after year, by attending the council meetings to simply rubber stamp the predetermined outcomes.  Let the Chartered Organizations and their COR's exercise their proper roles, and I would be the first to say that they all need to step up to make the necessary reforms happen.

In my experience, Chartering Organizations are the ones who rarely hold up their end of the deal. Your Charter Organization may be the exception to the rule, but I never see CO's help recruit youth and adults, support committees, encourage training, attend Council Exec board meetings, etc... and i GREATLY encourage active charters because, believe me, it makes my life a whole lot easier. 

I don't understand what you mean when you say councils don't fulfill their end. I will happily post the annual charter agreement so you can see for it yourself. What exactly are councils not doing? 

[walk in the woods]

25 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

What exactly are councils not doing? 

In 15 years of chartering my units neither the DE nor their designee ever once met with the IH to discuss and sign the Chartering Agreement.  That would be a good start.

[carebear3895]

Just now, walk in the woods said:

In 15 years of chartering my units neither the DE nor their designee ever once met with the IH to discuss and sign the Chartering Agreement.  That would be a good start.

Which is insane to hear because I meet with every CO twice a year at minimum. 

[Cburkhardt]

I believe the chartered organization model works as-is and would be hard to improve. In our case the Troop Committee chairman is the current head of the church board.  Our COR is the immediate past board chair.  Our Troop Chaplain is the church minister.  The CO gave us $3K without solicitation and hosted our annual fundraising coffee between their early and late services.  We raised $7K.  We don’t always agree with them, but we go along with their measured preferences.  Our scouts do numerous service projects for the church.  The local bishop knows all about us.

 If you have a poor or non-existent relationship with your CO you can change that by involving them in Troop decision making and governance— which is supposed to be their job.  We are a successful Troop in good part because of their support and our recognizing their value and taking their advice.  

The GSUSA model would have you entirely reporting to a professional who can dictate your terms of volunteer service and  remove you at will — because the “contract” you sign effectively includes employment terms.This can become pretty arbitrary from what I have read.

[Cburkhardt]

When we formed our girl Troop we met with four different potential COs and chose the one we thought was most interested and capable.  Was a great move because the Episcopal Paris we chose was really interested in working with us.  I am not suggesting anyone change their CO, but want you to know there are a lot of churches that want a credible youth program and will be delighted to support your unit.

[malraux]

14 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

If you have a poor or non-existent relationship with your CO you can change that by involving them in Troop decision making and governance— which is supposed to be their job.  We are a successful Troop in good part because of their support and our recognizing their value and taking their advice.  

We went through this about 2 years ago. We're a pack with 70+ youth, but no troop, which is a bit unique. We looked around for a CO that would take us and be able to provide meeting space. Can't find one. The churches in our area are getting slammed in membership by the megachurch nearby, and the megachurch wants nothing to do with the bsa. So even if our CO isn't interested in helping out, we haven't identified one any better. And our CO is acting as CO as a favor to the group, not because they want another meeting to attend. 

[yknot]

I think the CO relationship is something that needs to be significantly revamped if not dispensed with in any true restructuring. It is marginally functional for many based on the comments on this forum. I'm aware there are regional differences but in my area, many of the COs are smaller churches and community organizations with aging and declining memberships. They are barely able to keep their own organizations going so it is unrealistic to think they would have much effort to devote to living up to an agreement most of them were never party to in the first place. A lot of these COs have legacy units that have been there for decades. In my experiences, district and council wants little to nothing to do with COs other than to make sure there is a signature and maybe try and meet with them once a year. These COs want nothing to do with complicated issues like financial review, background checks, etc. They see their roles as giving us space, a smile and a signature. And this is the inherent conflict of interest, because by rights the council should be closing down these units but they won't because it would affect membership. Not that I want my unit closed down, but this sense of outrage towards COs is misplaced. We need a different model. 

[skeptic]

On occasion, though not as often as should be, COR's are actually involved in their position on the Executive board.  And on even rare instances, the group of COR's have been known to band together and restructure the local council.  It takes a lot of effort by a very concerned person or persons to get them involved.  Many have no idea that they actually have a vote on the Executive board, and that if they attend, they must be allowed to participate.  I am aware of at least a couple of times when the completely volunteer COR's banned together and fired the Council SE.  Of course, National may still just move the fired Professional, but they cannot leave them in a council that does not want them.  I know that there was a major issue in I believe the Chicago area regarding the oldest camp that saw an uprising.  But most of the time, too few are willing to push the envelope, or simply do not know they can.  And as has been noted, the political members of the Exec board and the paid executive do not want the majority of voting members involved regularly.  Yet, IF the COR's regularly did their jobs as described, you might see some more consistently viable executive boards and councils functioning better. 

[Cburkhardt]

On the issue of freeloader units.  My earlier comment was prompted by the large number of units that attend camp out of council, don’t participate in district or council activities, don’t assist the council or district financially (through FOS, product sales or otherwise) and don’t assist by participating in activities or training events.  Annual council program fees might motivate leaders of these units to derive value for their payments and participate as citizens of their councils.  Maybe FOS and other opportunities for units and parents to support councils financially were presented as optional during earlier times, but things have evolved to the point where we need to reset that understanding.  While the initial round of financial reorganization might be focused on national, at least 20% of our councils cannot survive in the coming few years without a new funding model.  Non- participation needs to become a thing of the past.  Program fees in lieu of these other funding devices are more equitable and efficient.